Dennis Kucinich

[Thrice]

In my "anybody but Hilary" quest, I've stumbled across the Dennis Kucinich website and found myself agreeing with MANY of his ideas on how to improve this country. Here's a Cliff Notes version:

Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans by passage of the United States National Health Insurance Act.
The immediate, phased withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.
Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.
Fostering a world of international cooperation.
Abolishing the death penalty.
Environmental renewal and clean energy.
Preventing the privatization of social security.
Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"
Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
Ending the war on drugs.
Legalizing same-sex marriage.
Creating a balance between workers and corporations.
Ending the H1B and L1 Visa Programs
Restoring rural communities and family farms.
Strengthening gun control.
---------------------------------

I highlighted the most important issues in my eyes.

I know that Kucinich has ZERO shot at the Presidency but it sure is fucking nice to know that SOMEONE in Congress sees things my way on some major issues.

For a more in depth look at Kucinich check out this page.
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/

These two paragraphs in particular nearly made me cum.

We need a new relationship between our government and corporate America, an arms-length relationship, so that our elected leaders are capable of independently affirming and safeguarding the public interest. Just as our founders understood the need for separation of church and state, we need to institutionalize the separation of corporations and the state. This begins with government taking the responsibility to establish the conditions under which corporations can do business in the United States, including the establishment of a federal corporate charter that describes and clearly delineates corporate rights and responsibilities.


Corporations must be compelled to pay a fair share of taxes. If corporations shift profits offshore to avoid paying taxes, they should not be permitted to operate in the United States. The decrease in corporate tax responsibility is an indication of the rise of corporate power. Corporations pay three and half times less in taxes now than they did in the 1950s. Working families have to make up the difference.

[lleeder]

That hardly seems like cliff notes version. I like a canidate that can be summed up in 5 words or less.

[sailor]

That hardly seems like cliff notes version. I like a candidate that can be summed up in 5 words or less.

dennis kucinich: i'm a hippie

seriously, something like "Environmental renewal and clean energy. " is the equivalent of saying "i like puppies"

[Jujubees2]

What's wrong with liking puppies? Yeah, it would be a terrible world if we took care of the environment and found an alternative to fossil fuels.

I would vote for Dennis and I have in the past. Yes, he has no realistic chance to win but i support almost all of his views.

[sailor]

What's wrong with liking puppies? Yeah, it would be a terrible world if we took care of the environment and found an alternative to fossil fuels.

I would vote for Dennis and I have in the past. Yes, he has no realistic chance to win but i support almost all of his views.

nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't say anything. just like "Fostering a world of international cooperation." he has a lot of serious issues, but a few are silly fillers. i think i disagree with almost every position he has except the gay marriage, which is a non-issue.

[Jujubees2]

At this point what candidate is saying anything with any teeth in it? All we get is get from the Republicans is "War on Terror" "Lower taxes"...

And the Dems are busy with "Pull out the troops" "I'm not George Bush" ...

[underdog]

And the Dems are busy with "Pull out the troops" "I'm not George Bush" ...

You forgot "I'm a woman." and "Its time for a president who will stop to ask directions."

[TheMojoPin]

i think i disagree with almost every position he has except the gay marriage, which is a non-issue.

I think the current administration has very much made it a real issue. Anytime the government is willing to draft ammendments to limit civil rights, I think that's pretty far from a "non-issue" as you can get.

[DarkHippie]

I like his ideas, but Kucinich is not the man to implement them. He was once mayor of Cleveland and literally drove that city into the ground. He led with Dinkins-like inepitude.

[sailor]

I think the current administration has very much made it a real issue. Anytime the government is willing to draft ammendments to limit civil rights, I think that's pretty far from a "non-issue" as you can get.

i'm just saying it's not that big a deal to the vast majority of people no matter how it turns out. like if they picked a national "favorite color".

[DonInNC]

i'm just saying it's not that big a deal to the vast majority of people no matter how it turns out. like if they picked a national "favorite color".

I think its an issue that resonates just enough with a lot of people to keep it on the platform (Is that the right word?). Personally, I think if someone was truely intersted in preserving the traditional concept of family, they'd go after deadbeat fathers, people who have children with multiple partners, and two income families before they took on gays. These people are the real threat to our leave-it-to-beaver lifestyle.

As far as Kucinich, have you noticed the camera shots of his wife during the debates? She looks really turned on by what he's saying. Its enough to make anyone an idealist.

[sailor]

I think its an issue that resonates just enough with a lot of people to keep it on the platform

i'm not saying people don't care; i'm saying it doesn't matter, won't make an impact on their lives. my fault for not being clearer and having it sound like i was saying the other. like, i'm in favor of gay marriage, but ultimately my life is the same with it or without it.

[TheMojoPin]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying that having a party in power that wants to make it illegal to the point of banning it kind of makes it a lot more than a non-issue. There's too many people treating it like it is a big deal.

[Crispy123]

I think the current administration has very much made it a real issue. Anytime the government is willing to draft ammendments to limit civil rights, I think that's pretty far from a "non-issue" as you can get.

QFT

He will definitely get the Klingon vote.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/Dennis_Kucinich.jpg

[sailor]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying that having a party in power that wants to make it illegal to the point of banning it kind of makes it a lot more than a non-issue. There's too many people treating it like it is a big deal.

no more than if the people in power wanted to make laws to make it legal. i just don't see the difference.

[TheMojoPin]

no more than if the people in power wanted to make laws to make it legal. i just don't see the difference.

You really don't see the difference between passing amendements to limit basic social rights or not doing that at all?

[A.J.]

Providing full social security benefits at age 65.

Isn't that already law?

[sailor]

You really don't see the difference between passing amendements to limit basic social rights or not doing that at all?

you're starting from the premise that it's a basic right that they're taking away, which i disagree with the facts of. it was never legal, just became an issue very recently and they just put that down on paper to make sure things stayed the way they like them (again, which i disagree with). and again, the two things i don't see a difference between (and this seems to keep not getting thru for some reason) is (1) making a law saying it's ok to have gay marriage, and (2) making a law saying it's NOT ok.

[sailor]

Isn't that already law?

currently, full retirement age is 67. you can get social security as young as 62, but your benefits will be permanently reduced (but, you'll get 5 extra years of these reduced benefits).

[keithy_19]

That hardly seems like cliff notes version. I like a canidate that can be summed up in 5 words or less.

"Abortions for some, mini American flags for everyone!"

It's under ten, so it works for me.

[PapaBear]

you're starting from the premise that it's a basic right that they're taking away, which i disagree with the facts of. it was never legal, just became an issue very recently and they just put that down on paper to make sure things stayed the way they like them (again, which i disagree with). and again, the two things i don't see a difference between (and this seems to keep not getting thru for some reason) is (1) making a law saying it's ok to have gay marriage, and (2) making a law saying it's NOT ok.
I think what he's pointing out, is the difference between a law and a Constitutional Amendment. Passing an amendment to the Constitution that bans same sex marriage (or anything else), would be a restriction of individual rights. Laws are VERY different than Constitutional rights.

BTW... I'm very sick right now, so forgive me if I'm reading this wrong.

edit... And by "he" I mean mojopin

[sailor]

I think what he's pointing out, is the difference between a law and a Constitutional Amendment. Passing an amendment to the Constitution that bans same sex marriage (or anything else), would be a restriction of individual rights. Laws are VERY different than Constitutional rights.

BTW... I'm very sick right now, so forgive me if I'm reading this wrong.

first, sorry to hear you're sick. hope you get better soon.

2nd, i was worried someone would type that and was going to put down "law/amendment" for every time i used law previously. going to that, i don't see the difference between one group of people wanting to make an amendment saying it's ok and another group wanting to make an amendment to say it's not ok.

[PapaBear]

first, sorry to hear you're sick. hope you get better soon.

2nd, i was worried someone would type that and was going to put down "law/amendment" for every time i used law previously. going to that, i don't see the difference between one group of people wanting to make an amendment saying it's ok and another group wanting to make an amendment to say it's not ok.
Has there ever been a push (serious or not) to pass an amendment to make it OK? There HAVE been efforts to pass one that bans it. Constitutional amendments are SERIOUS shit. The current administration has been trying to bring up amendments on so much bullshit (be it gay marriage, flag burning, or whatever). Constitutional amendments are supposed to guarantee rights... not limit them.

[A.J.]

Isn't that already law?

currently, full retirement age is 67. you can get social security as young as 62, but your benefits will be permanently reduced (but, you'll get 5 extra years of these reduced benefits).

Thanks for the info. I'll probably be long-dead by retirement age anyway.

[sailor]

Has there ever been a push (serious or not) to pass an amendment to make it OK? There HAVE been efforts to pass one that bans it. Constitutional amendments are SERIOUS shit. The current administration has been trying to bring up amendments on so much bullshit (be it gay marriage, flag burning, or whatever). Constitutional amendments are supposed to guarantee rights... not limit them.

outside of the bill of rights, there's no reason for an amendment to guarantee rights. they're just changes to the constitution and can be on any matter (i agree it's silly for this issue). and i was talking of some hypothetical administration had made an amendment allowing gay marriage.

No amendment that has actively sought to limit civil rights has ended up lasting. But then again, that's typical of the current administration's mindset to completely ignore the lessons and rammifications of history, so it's just par for the course.

[TheMojoPin]

first, sorry to hear you're sick. hope you get better soon.

2nd, i was worried someone would type that and was going to put down "law/amendment" for every time i used law previously. going to that, i don't see the difference between one group of people wanting to make an amendment saying it's ok and another group wanting to make an amendment to say it's not ok.

Well, by the current administration pushing the issue so that it ends up banned in so many states, an amendment to "legalize" it is now sadly necessary. It was made a "big issue" by Bush and co., and we can't just pretend like it's nothing now. Saying it's a non-issue is simply avoiding the reality of the situation as it's been propped up over the last 7+ years.

[sailor]

Well, by the current administration pushing the issue so that it ends up banned in so many states, an amendment to "legalize" it is now sadly necessary. It was made a "big issue" by Bush and co., and we can't just pretend like it's nothing now. Saying it's a non-issue is simply avoiding the reality of the situation as it's been propped up over the last 7+ years.

because you want to push your views on everyone else just as badly as they do. you're the same as the administration, just on the other side of this issue.

edit: let me explain that a bit, in case it comes across mean-spirited. bush saw some states allowing gay marriage and thought a anti-gay marriage amendment was a swell idea. mojo, you see some states not allowing gay marriage and think a pro-gay marriage amendment is a swell idea. what's the difference? if one is overstepping bounds (in your eyes) why isn't the other?

[TheMojoPin]

No, I think an amendment to legalize it only now is necessary BECAUSE of the administration's push to make it an issue and scare people into voting to ban it in multiple states. That's been my point all along...Bush and co. made it into a very real issue from the relative non-issue it was before. When we're verging on passing an amendment to limit civil rights, something that has failed time and again throughout our history and be shown to be incredibly shortsighted, it's about as far from a non-issue as possible. That's my point. Calling it a "non-issue" is living in the past before the current White House tried very, VERY hard to make it a serious issue for people on either sides of it.

And if "pushing my views" is wanting to stop an amendment that limits civil rights, something which has never succeeded or not eventually been stricken down all throughout our history, fine, then I guess it is. I didn't think an amendment to keep it legal or make it legal was necessary until Bush started the fight to stamp it out. HE made it an issue, not people like me.

[sailor]

regardless of who pushed for it, the states aren't doing what you want so you want a constitutional amendment to override them.

[TheMojoPin]

regardless of who pushed for it, the states aren't doing what you want so you want a constitutional amendment to override them.

Yes, because the states are making stupid laws limiting civil rights for absolutely no good or logical or sound reason whatsoever because they were scaremongered into putting the issue on the table by the current administration. A constitutional amendment is now all but necessary due to these actions just so two freakin' adults can have a legal union between each other. Sometimes this country has had to pass such things because many of the individual states want to drag their heels and live in the past and refuse to face reality. It's hardly unprecedented. Calling this a "non-issue" completely belittles an entire segment of our population that is being stripped of one of their civil rights on a state-by-state basis leading up to a ban on the national level. How is that possibly a "non-issue?"

[scottinnj]

And the Dems are busy with "Pull out the troops" "I'm not George Bush" ...

You forgot "I'm a woman." and "Its time for a president who will stop to ask directions."

Oh GOD I hate that POTUS 08 comercial. My wife throws up in her mouth whenever she hears that Hillary clip.

[badmonkey]

Yes, because the states are making stupid laws limiting civil rights for absolutely no good or logical or sound reason whatsoever because they were scaremongered into putting the issue on the table by the current administration. A constitutional amendment is now all but necessary due to these actions just so two freakin' adults can have a legal union between each other. Sometimes this country has had to pass such things because many of the individual states want to drag their heels and live in the past and refuse to face reality. It's hardly unprecedented. Calling this a "non-issue" completely belittles an entire segment of our population that is being stripped of one of their civil rights on a state-by-state basis leading up to a ban on the national level. How is that possibly a "non-issue?"
You should check into the "Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)" if you think this is an issue that started with the Bush Administration.

What most recently (last 4 yrs or so) made it a major issue for most of the country rather than the traditional hardcore christian right, was when it was pushed into the national spotlight by highly publicized pro same-sex marriage activism. Things like San Francisco issuing marriage licenses for same sex marriage, various pro same-sex marriage rulings in the Massachusetts Supreme Court resulting in the legalization of same-sex marriage in Mass, the Full Faith and Credit Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_clause), etc. Mostly what they are afraid of is having a law that has to be recognized in all states forced on the American people by a "liberal" court decision rather than by their own elected representatives.

I find myself on the fence pretty much on the issue of same-sex marriage and I can understand where both sides are coming from here. I don't see it as "our generation's civil rights movement" any more than I see Iraq as "our generation's Vietnam". The country isn't likely ready for same-sex marriage. Push for the legal rights under civil unions and call it "marriage" if that's what you want to call it. That shouldn't be too hard to get passed, but when you start trying to force the majority to accept something they see as immoral through court decision, you should not be surprised to see people suggesting extreme laws to prevent that from happening. I still think that the activists shot themselves in the foot by their approach to this issue. You have to step delicately with an issue like this or you end up causing legislation that puts bigger hurdles in your path.

Maybe we can return to letting our elected representatives write the laws?

Oh and to stay on topic... Kucinich is batshit insane. :)

Badmonkey

[scottinnj]

Oh and to stay on topic... Kucinich is batshit insane. :)

Badmonkey


Kucinich is the Left's Alan Keyes. Lot's of great ideas (if you agree with him) but a nut. One good thing he has going for him, he has a hottie for a wife.
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o217/themarshal/kucinich.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

You should check into the "Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)" if you think this is an issue that started with the Bush Administration.

What most recently (last 4 yrs or so) made it a major issue for most of the country rather than the traditional hardcore christian right, was when it was pushed into the national spotlight by highly publicized pro same-sex marriage activism.

Sounds pretty insidious the way you describe: some gay couples tried to get married.

Things like San Francisco issuing marriage licenses for same sex marriage, various pro same-sex marriage rulings in the Massachusetts Supreme Court resulting in the legalization of same-sex marriage in Mass, the Full Faith and Credit Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_clause), etc. Mostly what they are afraid of is having a law that has to be recognized in all states forced on the American people by a "liberal" court decision rather than by their own elected representatives.

SUMBITCH ACTIVIST JUDGES! If there's no law to declare something legal or illegal then judges have no choice to decide on the case. That's they way the system was designed. Therefore, in terms of "judicial activism" there is no difference between a judge ruling for or against allowing a gay couple to marry.

The "activism" going on is by the conservatives who are trying to get a law passed that restricts the right to an action that HAS NO EFFECT ON THEIR OWN RIGHTS OR LIVES IN ANY WAY. The term "traditional marriage" tha tthe X-ian right was never heard of before the right made it up to falsely claim that gays getting married somehow effects their own marriage. But if there really existed a "highly publicized pro same-sex marriage activist" movement out there then they would have made the point that if you really think that a lesbian couple getting married effects your marriage in any way then you don't need a constitutional ammendment, you need a marriage counselor. Or you just need to mind your own fucking businesss.

This issue is of, by and for the Repubican party to pander to the XR who want to impose their Biblical view of morality on other Americans. Their only opposition is coming from a handful of gay couples willing to try to press the system to recognize their desire to marry, some fringe Democrats like Larry Storch here and public opinion.

And the point that you and sailor miss is that the difference between the two sides is that in a free country it's really none of one of the side's business.

[Yerdaddy]

Kucinich is the Left's Alan Keyes. Lot's of great ideas (if you agree with him) but a nut. One good thing he has going for him, he has a hottie for a wife.
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o217/themarshal/kucinich.jpg

WRONG THREAD (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=62783&highlight=douchebag&page=6)

[epo]

Kucinich is the Left's Alan Keyes. Lot's of great ideas (if you agree with him) but a nut. One good thing he has going for him, he has a hottie for a wife.



One very big difference between Keyes & Kucinich. Kucinich is actually looking to improve all of our nation's people by extending rights to all.

[TheMojoPin]

The country isn't likely ready for same-sex marriage. Push for the legal rights under civil unions and call it "marriage" if that's what you want to call it. That shouldn't be too hard to get passed, but when you start trying to force the majority to accept something they see as immoral through court decision, you should not be surprised to see people suggesting extreme laws to prevent that from happening.

This country is rarely ever "ready" to do something progressive at the moment it actually needs to be done. If we wait for a safe majority to be "for" anything along these lines, well, we'll be waiting a loooooonnnnnng time. Why would anyone bother to change if they can just pass all their bullshit laws banning adults from just getting married? They'll just be comfy in their stagnant little shell of intolerance and...what's going to make people "ready" at any point to realize that gay marriage has nothing to do with their lives and won't hurt or harm them in any way if it's legal? It's a cop-out to say we need to wait to simply do what's right as opposed to limiting civil rights because people find something "icky."

[epo]

because you want to push your views on everyone else just as badly as they do. you're the same as the administration, just on the other side of this issue.



What's interesting is the flawed logic in this whole "gay marriage" pushing your views argument.


Ban of same sex marriage = homosexuals not allowed to marry, heterosexuals not affected.
Legalization of same sex marriage = homosexuals allowed to marry, heterosexuals not affected.


How is that the same position to "push"?

[epo]

This country is rarely ever "ready" to do something progressive at the moment it actually needs to be done. If we wait for a safe majority to be "for" anything along these lines, well, we'll be waiting a loooooonnnnnng time. Why would anyone bother to change if they can just pass all their bullshit laws banning adults from just getting married? They'll just be comfy in their stagnant little shell of intolerance and...what's going to make people "ready" at any point to realize that gay marriage has nothing to do with their lives and won't hurt or harm them in any way if it's legal? It's a cop-out to say we need to wait to simply do what's right as opposed to limiting civil rights because people find something "icky."

Exactly. The country wasn't ready for de-segregation of our schools...but that crazy Brown vs. Board of Education and those pesky "activist judges" made our nation cut the shit and start acting like civilized human beings.

I'm sorry if Mississippi or Alabama ain't ready on this one. Grow up.

[Zorro]

i just want to get a hold of whatever they're gonna smoke at the Department of Peace

[TheMojoPin]

Exactly. The country wasn't ready for de-segregation of our schools...but that crazy Brown vs. Board of Education and those pesky "activist judges" made our nation cut the shit and start acting like civilized human beings.

I'm sorry if Mississippi or Alabama ain't ready on this one. Grow up.

But wait for the inevitable response..."this isn't the same as the racial civil rights movements!"

[PapaBear]

I was talking to one of my bosses a few months ago. I brought up the people who say that gay marriage "ruins the sanctity of the institution of marriage". I was shocked when he said, "It does." This guy is married. I asked him if it would really affect his marriage, if two guys in New England got married. He said, "Of course it will".

How do you argue with such logic?:wallbash:

[underdog]

But wait for the inevitable response..."this isn't the same as the racial civil rights movements!"

I've just given up arguing with people about the rights of gay people because of this response. How do you continue a civilized conversation with someone who doesn't understand basic human rights?

[badmonkey]

Sounds pretty insidious the way you describe: some gay couples tried to get married.

SUMBITCH ACTIVIST JUDGES! If there's no law to declare something legal or illegal then judges have no choice to decide on the case. That's they way the system was designed. Therefore, in terms of "judicial activism" there is no difference between a judge ruling for or against allowing a gay couple to marry.

When the mayor of a city breaks the law by issuing illegal marriage licenses because "he wants to", it isn't just "some gay couples tried to get married", that would be the mayor of SF pushing his own agenda. That was activism as well as extremely "in your face" for a lot of people in this country and those people pushed back.

I have argued the pro same-sex marriage side for years so you can drop the I'm a heartless asshole who wants to ban gay marriage bit just because you know I'm a Republican. I now argue neither side because I can understand a lot of both arguments, and I'm not arguing either side here now. I told you why it suddenly became an issue and it wasn't anything the Bush Administration or Republicans in general started. It was pushed to the forefront by gay activists and the media and the politicians of both parties responded to it. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Surely, even blinded by your hatred for Bush, you can see that 1996 is before 2000. I think you should maybe read more carefully what I type rather than trying to kick me with both feet in your mouth.

You want laws put in place to allow for gay marriage, elect some legislators that will write them or run for office yourself. That's the way the system works whether you like it or not. Judges do not write law, they interpret it.

Exactly. The country wasn't ready for de-segregation of our schools...but that crazy Brown vs. Board of Education and those pesky "activist judges" made our nation cut the shit and start acting like civilized human beings.

I'm sorry if Mississippi or Alabama ain't ready on this one. Grow up.

You guys love to throw Mississippi and Alabama into this as if they're the ones that are still segregated. I lived in Southern Mississippi for years and the closest thing I've experienced to segregation is here in DC. I hear that the highly advanced northern cities of tolerance like New York segregate their neighborhoods first into race and then from there nationality so you can get off your soap box. The argument is lame, elitist, and horribly uninformed.


Badmonkey

[Lahey_77]

You guys are arguing over exactly what they want you to argue over. Same-sex marriage is of minimal importance. The media and the politicians dwell on these issues so that we (the people) can feel a facade of control. The real issues, e.g., corporate control, will not be changed by any of the front running candidates. Whether we elect a Republican or Democrat, the corporations remain in control and nothing really changes.
Separation of the corporations and the state = a real issue
Gay marriage = a non-starter

[Yerdaddy]

When the mayor of a city breaks the law by issuing illegal marriage licenses because "he wants to", it isn't just "some gay couples tried to get married", that would be the mayor of SF pushing his own agenda. That was activism as well as extremely "in your face" for a lot of people in this country and those people pushed back.

How is it illegal if there's no law against it?

I have argued the pro same-sex marriage side for years so you can drop the I'm a heartless asshole who wants to ban gay marriage bit just because you know I'm a Republican. I now argue neither side because I can understand a lot of both arguments, and I'm not arguing either side here now. I told you why it suddenly became an issue and it wasn't anything the Bush Administration or Republicans in general started. It was pushed to the forefront by gay activists and the media and the politicians of both parties responded to it. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Surely, even blinded by your hatred for Bush, you can see that 1996 is before 2000. I think you should maybe read more carefully what I type rather than trying to kick me with both feet in your mouth.

I never said or suggested you were a heartless asshole and you're only saying I did now because you can't defend your argument. I said your description exaggerated the issue and I still say it did.

You want laws put in place to allow for gay marriage, elect some legislators that will write them or run for office yourself. That's the way the system works whether you like it or not. Judges do not write law, they interpret it.

Absolutely false.

That's not the only valid course of action open for political action in America and never has been. Somebody mentioned Brown vs Board of Education. That's one example of thousands of citizens securing their rights through the courts - usually against laws deemed unconstitutional. In your example there existed no laws prohibiting same-sex marriages in the first place and you haven't explained why the judge in your example was issuing "illegal" marriage licenses if there was no law against it. (And if there's no law against it and the anti-gay marriage activists file the lawsuit then they're the ones violating your law-drafting restrictions, aren't they?) And if it's not the gay couples brining suit the example is more comparable to black children trying to enter white schools, in which the Constitional solution to their specific cases was for the POTUS to send in the National Guard to defy the segregationist governor and enforce the Supreme Court ruling that there was no legal prohibition against the individuals attending those schools. There's your valid comparison.

As to your contest of laws as the only recourse: read the 9th and 10th Ammendments of the Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because the Constitution doesn't declare gay marriage a right doesn't mean it isn't one.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

If it isn't prohibited by the federal constitution or the state constitution then it's a right of the people. Therefore the gay couples have a right to get married and its the activism of the anti-gay marriage that is restricting their right to do so.

You guys love to throw Mississippi and Alabama into this as if they're the ones that are still segregated. I lived in Southern Mississippi for years and the closest thing I've experienced to segregation is here in DC. I hear that the highly advanced northern cities of tolerance like New York segregate their neighborhoods first into race and then from there nationality so you can get off your soap box. The argument is lame, elitist, and horribly uninformed.

De facto segregation in America today is as irelevant to this debate as the number of anti-gay marriage Republicans who have been caught sucking cock. The use of desegregation for comparison is because it's the most well-known example of similar struggle of a segment of America to obtain specific rights. Stop pretending to be offended and address our arguments. Or we'll just take it as a concession that you're wrong.

[Thrice]

You guys are arguing over exactly what they want you to argue over. Same-sex marriage is of minimal importance. The media and the politicians dwell on these issues so that we (the people) can feel a facade of control. The real issues, e.g., corporate control, will not be changed by any of the front running candidates. Whether we elect a Republican or Democrat, the corporations remain in control and nothing really changes.
Separation of the corporations and the state = a real issue
Gay marriage = a non-starter

How tragically apropos is it that a thread about a politician who isn't looking to tow the company line on some of the major issues and strives for progress degenerates into a same sex marriage volley? This country really is doomed.

[Thrice]

Oh and to stay on topic... Kucinich is batshit insane. :)

Yes because he's a vegan, he supports peace, he wants universal health-care and he's friends with Shirley MacLaine. Crazy, I tell ya. Crazy!

It's pretty hypocritical how one party will elect a candidate based near solely on his belief in an invisible omnipotent creator of the universe whom he consults on a daily basis before making decisions that will affect every American's lives but when a man on the other end of the political spectrum believes in peace and love he's batshit insane. Typical.

[A.J.]

It's pretty hypocritical how one party will elect a candidate based near solely on his belief in an invisible omnipotent creator of the universe whom he consults on a daily basis before making decisions that will affect every American's lives

At first I thought you were talking about Billy Graham.

[Thrice]

At first I thought you were talking about Billy Graham.

http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2004/02/19/1077209432_2620.jpg

[sailor]

How tragically apropos is it that a thread about a politician who isn't looking to tow the company line on some of the major issues and strives for progress degenerates into a same sex marriage volley? This country really is doomed.

why do you see this marriage discussion as a bad thing, mr doom-and-gloom?

[Thrice]

why do you see this marriage discussion as a bad thing, mr doom-and-gloom?

Well let's see, an issue that directly affects anywhere from 2% to 10% of Americans dominates any political discussion because it's been deemed a hot button issue by the nightly news. There are far more important issues that affect far greater percentages of American citizens than gay marriage. To spend a disproportionate amount of time arguing this one issue is doing a great disservice to the bigger and in the grand scheme of things more important issues.

The nightly news has whipped this country into a fervor over marriage while we are engaged in a war we can't win and a dollar that is losing value daily. As of 2005 this country has 46.6 million citizens who don't have even a shred of health coverage. The Federal Trade Deficit grows larger every year. The National Debt has reached an all-time high of 9 trillion dollars...

All that and still what is everyone stuck on, gay marriage. Why? Because its the most divisive issue out there today. Keep the public at each other's throats and the people in charge get away with murder. Until we can all see the bigger picture we're fucked.

[Thrice]

dennis kucinich: i'm a hippie

seriously, something like "Environmental renewal and clean energy. " is the equivalent of saying "i like puppies"

Renewable Energy

Congressman Kucinich successfully attached two amendments to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that will contribute to the growth of renewable energy in the United States.

The first amendment directs the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a feasibility study of mustard seed as a feedstock for biodiesel. Mustard seed has many advantages over other feedstocks including higher oil content, it's easier to grow in the colder and drier climates of the US, and the conversion process leaves behind an organic pesticide and herbicide. Initial research studies by the University of Idaho and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have shown favorable results.

Congressman Kucinich believes farmers are the key to eliminating our dependency on foreign oil. Farmers have many growing options for biomass feedstocks, but it is imperative that we find the best feedstocks that will eliminate are dependency as soon as possible.

This amendment won a bipartisan approval on the House floor by a vote of 259 to 171, including 68 Republicans.

The second amendment attached by Congressman Kucinich and Congresswomen Kaptur from Toledo, Ohio doubles the number of Department of Energy Clean City programs that could apply for a pilot program to invest in alternative fuel vehicles. The amendment ensures more cities benefit from alternative fuel vehicles.

Farmers and our urban centers can work together to eliminate our foreign dependency on oil. Farmers grow biomass feedstocks that can then be processed locally to supply nearby cities such as Cleveland and Toledo. Farmers benefit with new and more stable markets, our fuel supply is home grown thus reducing our dependence on foreign oil, fuel prices are reduced and the air we breathe is cleaner. The goal is to use northern Ohio as a showcase for a sustainable energy system from farm to city.


Clean Air and Global Warming

Climate change will be one of the most important issues today’s generation will have to address. The most reputable scientists in the world agree that it is not only already underway, but there is still time to reduce its effects. Though the U.S. holds only 3% of the world’s population, it is responsible for 25% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Congressman Kucinich believes we have a responsibility to take action. In December 2004, Congressman Kucinich was the only Democrat to attend the Conference of Parties (COP 10) in Buenos Aires, Argentina where hundreds of governments gathered to try to determine ways to address climate change. There, he made it clear to the world that the majority of Americans want their country to act to address climate change. He also met with parliamentarians from China, Great Britain, The European Union, and others to discuss possible ways forward, despite the refusal of the Bush administration to take action.

History will likely show that one of the drivers of the disastrous hurricane season of 2005 was climate change. And yet, the administration continues its resistance to taking substantive action to counter it. In addition, the unacceptable response to Hurricane Katrina alone suggested no forewarning of this kind of event. In October 2005, Congressman Kucinich submitted a resolution of inquiry, which is analogous to a legislative subpoena, requesting copies of information in the possession of the President pertaining to the effects of climate change on the coastal United States. The resolution had 150 cosponsors.

Congressman Kucinich is committed to keeping our air free from pollution. In June 2002, he testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works during the hearing: Benefits and Costs of Multi-Pollutant Legislation, on the public health and environmental benefits of the Clean Power Act. Congressman Kucinich stressed the ethics of enacting multi pollutant legislation, for air pollution adversely affects society’s most vulnerable groups, including children, the elderly and those with weak immune systems. He is a cosponsor of multi-pollutant legislation introduced in the House, the Clean Smokestacks Act, which would require significant reductions in power plants by four key pollutants: mercury, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide.

In addition to working for improved clean air legislation, he has also actively opposed rollbacks of the Clean Air Act. In March 2002, he wrote to Administrator Whitman to oppose U.S. EPA’s proposed direct final rule to approve Ohio EPA’s weak nonattainment New Source Review program and has sent Dear Colleagues to House members opposing New Source Review rollbacks.

Congressman Kucinich believes that job creation and economic revitalization are consistent with protecting the environment. In the 105th Congress, Congressman Kucinich initiated an effort to safeguard our environment by fighting to protect the Clean Air Act and to safeguard the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to tighten air quality standards. Congressman Kucinich maintained in letters to President Clinton and EPA Administrator Carol Browner that the public supports stricter clean air standards, and that these standards should be implemented without delay. The Congressman organized his colleagues by leading a campaign against an amendment to an appropriations bill that attempted to block the EPA from enforcing air quality standards. The amendment was quickly withdrawn after a bipartisan coalition in opposition was mobilized.


http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/

He likes puppies alright.

[TheMojoPin]

How tragically apropos is it that a thread about a politician who isn't looking to tow the company line on some of the major issues and strives for progress degenerates into a same sex marriage volley? This country really is doomed.

So you don't think that this has, for better or for worse, been made a "real" issue by the current administration to bolster their base? Are we just supposed to ignore it now?

[badmonkey]

The judge is the MAYOR of SF.

The licenses were illegal because California did not recognize same-sex marriages at the time. They did recognize civil unions. The mayor had the forms modified to be gender neutral and issued the marriage licenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California
"On August 12, citing the mayor's lack of authority to bypass state law, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the marriages were void."

"The California state agency that records marriages stated that altered forms, including any marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples, would not be registered. The legal validity of the marriages was tested in the courts, and the marriages were ultimately voided by the state Supreme Court."


http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/mayorgavin.htm

That is what angered people outside the normal areas of extreme religious right, homophobes, etc.

Like I stated earlier, you can try and turn this into me arguing against gay marriage all day long, but that's not even close to what I have done here. I told you why the gay marriage issue became such a big deal so fast. Whether it's right or wrong for it to be a big deal or whether it's right or wrong for gays to get married are completely separate discussions. The point here is that the Bush administration did not push this. It was an issue LONG before he was even elected and it was accelerated during the 2004 election cycle because of actions like those of the mayor of SF.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act), is the commonly-used name of a federal law of the United States that is officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects.

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

[sailor]

Well let's see, an issue that directly affects anywhere from 2% to 10% of Americans dominates any political discussion because it's been deemed a hot button issue by the nightly news. There are far more important issues that affect far greater percentages of American citizens than gay marriage. To spend a disproportionate amount of time arguing this one issue is doing a great disservice to the bigger and in the grand scheme of things more important issues.

The nightly news has whipped this country into a fervor over marriage while we are engaged in a war we can't win and a dollar that is losing value daily. As of 2005 this country has 46.6 million citizens who don't have even a shred of health coverage. The Federal Trade Deficit grows larger every year. The National Debt has reached an all-time high of 9 trillion dollars...

All that and still what is everyone stuck on, gay marriage. Why? Because its the most divisive issue out there today. Keep the public at each other's throats and the people in charge get away with murder. Until we can all see the bigger picture we're fucked.

exactly. if you read back, you'll see that the thing we were arguing about is my belief that this is not an important issue. thanks for backing me up, big fella. :)

[Thrice]

So you don't think that this has, for better or for worse, been made a "real" issue by the current administration to bolster their base? Are we just supposed to ignore it now?

Ideally we should address EVERY issue that affects a significant portion of the population. I feel like we've all been manipulated on this particular issue. Ignoring gay marriage isn't what I had in mind at all. At a bare minimum I'm hoping that some of the bigger issues that aren't being talked about should get equal time as gay marriage in the public eye.

[Thrice]

exactly. if you read back, you'll see that the thing we were arguing about is my belief that this is not an important issue. thanks for backing me up, big fella. :)

No quite. You called it a non-issue which is false. Up to 10% of Americans are gay. Those 10% should have EVERY right that the other 90% of Americans have. Until those 10% do have the same rights as the 90% this country has a problem. I personally don't feel it's as important as other issues but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to it like you want.

[scottinnj]

One very big difference between Keyes & Kucinich. Kucinich is actually looking to improve all of our nation's people by extending rights to all.


Like I said, if you agree with him.
But talking about rights:
He'll take away your right-
to choose your own doctor.-national health care.
to invest your money in retirement plans you see fit to.-preventing partial privatization of Social Security.
to own the weapon of your choice to defend your home.-more gun control.


Among other things.

[Thrice]

Like I said, if you agree with him.
But talking about rights:
He'll take away your right-
to choose your own doctor.-national health care.
Among other things.

Actually Kucinich is a proponent of a Universal, Single-Payer Health Care system. Your right to choose the doctor of your liking wouldn't change at all.

[scottinnj]

Actually Kucinich is a proponent of a Universal, Single-Payer Health Care system. Your right to choose the doctor of your liking wouldn't change at all.

Tell that to the Europeans. You get to go to a government funded city/regional clinic, and wait in line for the first available doctor. It's sort of like sick call in the Army. Or the "next available customer service represenative" when you call your bank.

It may be cheaper, but it won't necessarily be better.

[Thrice]

Tell that to the Europeans. You get to go to a government funded city/regional clinic, and wait in line for the first available doctor. It's sort of like sick call in the Army. Or the "next available customer service represenative" when you call your bank.

It may be cheaper, but it won't necessarily be better.

You're talking about socialized medicine. Universal, single-payer health care is not socialized medicine. The Government takes the place of your health insurance provider/hmo. They pay the bill. They are not responsible for employing doctors or building hospitals.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

Who will run the health care system?
There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.

In a public system the public has a say in how it’s run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by an elected and appointed body that represents the people of that state. This body decides on the benefit package, negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology.

The benefit package people will receive will not be decided upon by the legislature, but by the appointed body that represents all state residents in consultation with medical experts in all fields of medicine
.

[Yerdaddy]

http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2004/02/19/1077209432_2620.jpg

I had no idea protestants had altar boys.

[Thrice]

I like his ideas, but Kucinich is not the man to implement them. He was once mayor of Cleveland and literally drove that city into the ground. He led with Dinkins-like inepitude.

I missed this one.

Kucinich did not run Cleveland into the ground. His one term as mayor was in fact filled with turmoil but it had more to do with his unwillingness to sell off Cleveland's public owned power company in order to stave off defaulting on city loans(which were taken out by the mayor before Kucinich) than anything else.

The company who made the offer on Cleveland's Muny Light was financially backed by the bank that refused to extend Cleveland's line of credit because Kucinich refused to sell. In the short term the city suffered but by refusing to sell off Muny Light he saved the city of Cleveland nearly 200 million dollars over the next 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoral_administration_of_Dennis_Kucinich

[Thrice]

PICK YOUR CANDIDATE!

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php

Okay, here's a really simple way to find out which candidates share your views. This script is composed entirely of data collected by www.2decide.com. Enter your choices below and hit GO to rank the candidates.

Here's how it works, if you want to know. If you agree with a candidate, he gets point(s). If you disagree, take point(s) away. Unkown/other results in no points. The number of points given or taken depends on the weight you set. "Meh" is worth 1 point, "important" 2, and "key" is worth 5. The items you disagree about will be listed directly underneath each candidate (if they score greater than zero).


My results:

Kucinich 49
No Child Left Behind, Border Fence

Gravel 38
Border Fence

Obama 33
Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

Clinton 31
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Edwards 28
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Dodd 26
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action

Biden 25
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

Richardson 22
Death Penalty, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Paul 6
Abortion Rights, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Kyoto, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Net Neutrality, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Universal Healthcare

McCain -14
Brownback -17
Thompson -20
Huckabee -22
Cox -22
Giuliani -23
Tancredo -42
Romney -43
Hunter -43
_______________________

What did everyone else get?

[Bob Impact]

Paul 16
Abortion Rights, Embryonic Stem Cells, Kyoto, Guns - Background Checks, Guantanamo, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Net Neutrality, Iran Sanctions, Iraq War, Same-Sex Marriage

Gravel 16
Guantanamo, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iraq War, Universal Healthcare

Kucinich 12
No Child Left Behind, ANWR Drilling, Assault Weapons Ban, Guantanamo, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iraq War, Minimum Wage Increase, Universal Healthcare

Giuliani 11
Death Penalty, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Torture, Wiretapping, Net Neutrality, Iran - Military Action, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal, Same-Sex Marriage

McCain 8
Abortion Rights, Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, ANWR Drilling, Kyoto, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Net Neutrality, Iran - Military Action, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal, Same-Sex Marriage

Thompson 6
Abortion Rights, Death Penalty, Kyoto, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Net Neutrality, Iraq Troop Surge

Dodd 5
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, ANWR Drilling, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Iran - Military Action, Iraq War, Minimum Wage Increase

Richardson 3
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Border Fence, Iran - Military Action, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Universal Healthcare

Biden 3
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, ANWR Drilling, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Iraq War, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage

Obama 2
ANWR Drilling, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Iraq War, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Universal Healthcare

Clinton 0
Edwards -2
Brownback -2
Cox -2
Tancredo -7
Hunter -9
Huckabee -15
Romney -18

Interesting to say the least. As far outside of the political parties as I am I expected to see something like this, but I think this poll needs a deal breaker option. Kucinch's healthcare plan is one for me, so are Anti-Stem Cell candidates.

[sailor]

great site. deserves it's own thread.

McCain 17
Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Assault Weapons Ban, Guantanamo, Wiretapping, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage

Romney 16
Torture, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Same-Sex Marriage, Same-Sex Civil Union, Same-Sex Constitutional Ban

Giuliani 15
Abortion Rights, Embryonic Stem Cells, Torture, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage

Hunter 14
Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Torture, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Same-Sex Constitutional Ban

Huckabee 12
Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Same-Sex Marriage, Same-Sex Civil Union, Same-Sex Constitutional Ban

Thompson 8
Embryonic Stem Cells, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Minimum Wage Increase

Cox 6
Death Penalty, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Same-Sex Civil Union, Same-Sex Constitutional Ban

Tancredo 6
Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Torture, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Iraq Troop Surge, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Same-Sex Civil Union, Same-Sex Constitutional Ban

Edwards 0
Biden 0
Dodd 0
Brownback -1
Richardson -1
Clinton -2
Paul -7
Obama -7
Kucinich -12
Gravel -13

[TheMojoPin]

Well, no surprises here. Good ol' Dennis...

Kucinich 97
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Gravel 64
No Child Left Behind

Edwards 61
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Clinton 57
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Obama 55
Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

Biden 51
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

Dodd 48
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action

Richardson 45
Death Penalty, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Paul 6
Abortion Rights, No Child Left Behind, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Kyoto, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Border Fence, Net Neutrality, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Universal Healthcare

McCain -16
Thompson -27
Giuliani -33
Cox -35
Brownback -39
Huckabee -55
Romney -66
Hunter -80
Tancredo -84

[sailor]

Well, no surprises here. Good ol' Dennis...

Kucinich 97
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Gravel 64
No Child Left Behind

Edwards 61
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Clinton 57
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Obama 55
Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

Biden 51
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage

Dodd 48
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action

Richardson 45
Death Penalty, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Paul 6
Abortion Rights, No Child Left Behind, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Kyoto, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Border Fence, Net Neutrality, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Universal Healthcare

McCain -16
Thompson -27
Giuliani -33
Cox -35
Brownback -39
Huckabee -55
Romney -66
Hunter -80
Tancredo -84

did you just put key for every issue?

also, how did gravel lose 33 points over one issue??

[Yerdaddy]

Kucinich 26
Iran Sanctions, Iraq War, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal

Gravel 17
No Child Left Behind, Iran Sanctions, Iraq War, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal

Richardson 14
Death Penalty, Assault Weapons Ban, Iran - Military Action, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal, Same-Sex Marriage

McCain 14
Abortion Rights, Death Penalty, Kyoto, Assault Weapons Ban, Border Fence, Iran - Military Action, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Universal Healthcare

Biden 13
Death Penalty, Border Fence, Iraq War, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal, Same-Sex Marriage

Clinton 12
Death Penalty, Border Fence, Iran - Military Action, Iraq War, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal, Same-Sex Marriage

Dodd 11
Death Penalty, Border Fence, Iran - Military Action, Iraq War, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal

Obama 11
Border Fence, Iraq War, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal, Same-Sex Marriage

Edwards 11
Death Penalty, Iran - Military Action, Iraq War, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal, Same-Sex Marriage

Cox -4
Huckabee -5
Paul -6
Giuliani -7
Brownback -11
Thompson -13
Romney -20
Hunter -22
Tancredo -27

[Zorro]

Single payer seems to work best when you have the bucks to go elsewhere for your treatment.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914

[Thrice]

From Dennis' Myspace Bulletin:

Hi!

Dennis will make a special guest appearance on the Tonight Show
with Jay Leno on Monday, September 24th.

Dennis will talk about his Presidential campaign and about his
soon-to-be released autobiography, "Courage to Survive."

The Tonight Show airs on NBC stations at 11:30 pm Eastern
Daylight Time.
(Check local listings for time and station in your area)

Thank you,
Dennis for President Team

[Thrice]

Single payer seems to work best when you have the bucks to go elsewhere for your treatment.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914

No system is perfect. The idea is not to copy Canada's system but to use a similar approach while looking at their mistakes as a point of reference on what to avoid if at all possible.

I for one would be willing to accept the challenges of a single-payer system for all versus the current bloated, wasteful only-for-profit system we currently have in place which isn't even available to all American people.

[epo]

Gravel 49
Death Penalty, Iran Sanctions

Kucinich 48
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Iran Sanctions

Clinton 32
No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Richardson 30
Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Dodd 30
No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran - Military Action

Obama 30
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Same-Sex Marriage

Edwards 28
No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Biden 25
No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Same-Sex Marriage

Paul 10
Abortion Rights, Death Penalty, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Kyoto, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Border Fence, Net Neutrality, Iran Sanctions, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Universal Healthcare

Giuliani -16
Thompson -19
McCain -20
Cox -27
Brownback -35
Tancredo -38
Huckabee -38
Romney -52
Hunter -53